Technological differences between Kostenki 17/II (Spitsynskaya industry, Central Russia) and the Protoaurignacian: Reply to Dinnis et al. (2019)

Abstract

With great interest, we read the new study on early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of the Kostenki region conducted by Dinnis et al. (2019). In this reply, we point out analytical and interpretative inconsistencies we found in that article. Dinnis et al. (2019) associated the early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) assemblages from the three Central Russian sites Kostenki 1, 14 and 17 with the Aurignacian four-phase model developed in Southwestern Europe. Thus, Dinnis et al. (2019) assigned the EUP assemblage from Kostenki 17 layer II to the Protoaurignacian and Kostenki 1/III as well as Kostenki 14/layer in volcanic ash (LVA; ~40 ka cal BP) to the Early Aurignacian. By doing so the authors promoted a unidirectional expansion of modern humans from the southeast into Europe.

Armando Falcucci

Postdoctoral Researcher

My research focuses on the earliest stages of the Upper Paleolithic. I am currently analyzing several Aurignacian sites in Italy to better frame the chrono-cultural development of this technocomplex and investigate the role of climate change in the evolution of stone tool technologies.